I'd also like to know where this Broussard guy is held in such high regard. His only presence on the web is nothing but conspiracy sites or media just as Blueskies said. I can't imagine such an outstanding member of the independent astronomer community would have made no other notable contributions or chimed in on other subjects than planet x.

April 4th, 2014, 4:49 pm

stevenlake

Baton Girl

Joined: April 3rd, 2014, 12:35 pmPosts: 14

Re: Planet X: discussion

Blueskies wrote:

Top ranked by who?

And you talk about my stuff being facepalm worthy. Did you check with NASA? What about the dozens of Amateur astronomy groups around the world? Did you research them? Clearly not. I may not be an accredited astronomer or scientist myself (although I do love science and study it a lot) I do follow what they do fairly closely.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, running a Google search, he's an amateur astronomer that's been invited on a few conspiracy theory (and I use the term not in jest, they're quite literally labeled that) podcasts. How does that make him credible?

And you fail at google search 101. I'll leave it at that as anymore time spent here would obviously be pointless.

Quote:

I'm out; everyone else can have fun.

Thank you. Not to sound sarcastic, but if you're not going to offer anything productive to the conversation it's best not to offer anything at all, which it appears you're doing just that. Again, thank you for bowing out.

rao wrote:

I'd also like to know where this Broussard guy is held in such high regard. His only presence on the web is nothing but conspiracy sites or media just as Blueskies said. I can't imagine such an outstanding member of the independent astronomer community would have made no other notable contributions or chimed in on other subjects than planet x.

Just because the conspiracy circles make him famous doesn't mean that's his only claim to fame. Heck, Elvis Presley is famous in the conspiracy circles (alien in disguise, abducted, still alive, etc) and he was a world famous entertainer. Like I said, it's basic Google 101. If you want the real nuts and bolts on someone, go beyond the normal routine searches. In doing software development work part of my job is researching things on the web, and I've learned from experience that simple searches don't cut it. Quite often you have to start with a key term and use that as a jumping off point to other things until you eventually find what you're after. The idea that a 10 second google search will give you the answers to the universe is just insane. The same can be said about research in the old days. You started with the card file and worked your way outward from there until you found what you were looking for. Google is no different. The only major advantage of Google is you get to where you're going faster.

Now, for those of you who clearly don't know Gill Broussard, or think he's just some ham who doesn't have a shred of credibility, let me present to you someone who I think you can all agree has lots of credibility. Dr. Robert Harrington, former head of the US Naval Observatory. His coworker, James W. Christy helped him make the discovery of PlanetX which Gill later confirmed as being a correct and valid observation. So, if Gill doesn't have enough credentials for you, how about these other two?

Now, as far as overall PlanetX theorem on the web, I'm actually siding with the skeptics on that. From what I've seen most of it is either 1) disinformation designed to discredit the discoveries made by Gill, Robert and others. And 2) completely fabricated or outright fables made up by some people who are clearly not in their right mind. But that's true with a lot of things that don't have full evidence that can be totally proven by the average layman. Anyone remember cold fusion? Yup, that's one of them. Ultimately debunked, but a lot of people fell for it before someone got some good science under them and proved it fake. What about the old flat worlders (there's actually still a number of them today, surprisingly enough) who thought the world completely flat? Or the mariners that thought there were gigantic sea monsters in the ocean that ate ships. Or better yet, mermaids. For years that was a sailors tall tale until they realized the men were describing dolphins and manatees they encounter either while drunk or out in the sea sailing.

So yeah, there's a lot of junk science out there about PlanetX, just as there's been junk science about other things in the past (at one time scientists thought men would explode if they crossed the sound barrier) that was eventually proven wrong, or inversely, proven true. For now though, the best you can do with this topic is a few select individuals who aren't (or weren't) ashamed to speak the truth. Just as they once said man could never fly, I say, just because the majority of the scientific community says it's not real doesn't mean it isn't. It's like a lot of other topics in science these days. Once a scientist makes up his mind it takes some pretty serious and very irrefutable proof before they will be able to overcome their cognitive dissonance and accept the truth that's been staring them in the face for years.

No stevenlake, you're wrong. It was one person. Blueskies was the only person who posted anything derogatory toward you. Regularjoe asked a question and did make one joke about FEMA, but he wasn't derogatory toward you. In fact, he's the one who chided Blueskies. So it was just one person. Go back and look. I did.

You said you wanted people to research counter claims on their own and not require you to do all the research yourself. Fair enough. But you need to understand that you've posted a ton of info here and then left after 1 day. That's not exactly giving people time to look into things, especially considering that (in your own words) your "freetime to engage in these discussions is limited at best". Shouldn't you extend the same courtesy to everyone else since the rest of us are likely very busy as well? You want to talk about good debate etiquette, that would be a good one to add to your list. Anyway....

As for your points, I'll jump in on a few (still haven't had time to research everything).

NASA not being trustworthyJust because the federal government "signs their checks" doesn't mean NASA is automatically untrustworthy. Yes, there are things that NASA has been involved in that weren't disclosed to the public. But there are also many things they did that have been disclosed. Simply being affiliated with the Federal Government doesn't automatically discredit them. If that were the case, then we should not put any credibility in anything WarEr4Christ says because he used to be in the military, and the federal government also "signs their checks", so everyone in the military must also be untrustworthy. As for the ISON stuff, again the only links I can find for that are conspiracy videos and things.

Regarding earthquakes, the link you provided contradicts itself. The chart on the link you provided says it shows earthquakes measuring "between 6 and 8". But if you follow the link on the top of the page (which I'm assuming the chart is using for its data), you find that the data doesn't match the chart. For example:

I made a chart of the data for every year back to 1990 (the earliest year on the website). It paints a much different picture than the HorizonProject site does.This shows earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater worldwide in blue, compared to the data from the Horizon Project in red. Clearly, total number of earthquakes seems to be increasing, but it's hardly the sharp spike shown in the link you provided. Again, this is from the link provided on the page you gave us, so I don't know what data they are using. Maybe I'm missing something.

I haven't had a chance to look into the rest yet, but so far it seems that things are not quite adding up.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

April 5th, 2014, 8:17 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4180Location: Davison Mi

Re: Planet X: discussion

Boy oh boy, I take the weekend off and the conversation gets interesting!

First off, thank you TDJ for backing up what I was saying. Sometimes I don't use proper political correctness, and my point gets missed.

Now for Steve:

I agree that there are more earthquakes in the past 5 years, but your statement is misleading. To be honest I was surprised when I saw you were correct. It seems I would have heard about this if it were true. But looking into things a bit deeper I discovered why. While it's true there have been more 6.9 and smaller quakes, there has actually been a decline in the larger more dangerous quakes. So instead of the earth doing 15-20 large tectonic shifts, it's doing more smaller ones to compensate. Also upon looking into it more, if the quakes were due to an Astral presence, there would be much more turmoil in the oceans. Tide rising and falling would be more drastic, and it has not been. Outside of the one Tsunami a couple of years back, there has been no strange anomalies in sea levels that can't be easily explained by melting polar caps. This example is far from conclusive, and actually a huge reach, with no evidence to back it up.

Credibility of your expert....due to your own logic he is NOT credible. When asked about who says he is an expert, you said NASA does. But you also say we can't trust NASA. So by your own logic, we can't trust anyone they call an expert, correct? I mean, if the government is going to have them lie about what's really going on, wouldn't it make sense for them to endorse the crackpots who will distract from the real truth? Ergo...his is wrong and NASA wants us to buy into it so we stay ignorant to the real truth. You have put yourself into a catch 22 here.

And speaking of NASA, your argument falls flat when you look at the bigger picture. You say the government won't let them talk about it, as it instills fear. But NASA has no issues talking about other thing that will eventually destroy all life on this planet. Comets, massive solar flares, the sun going super nova, and more. These are all things that are common knowledge due to NASA (and other astral programs) discoveries. Why talk about them, but forbid this topic? It doesn't make sense. You have thus far failed to discredit NASA.

And lastly, if you are going to criticize others for debate etiquette, you must hold yourself accountable as well. As the " expert" on the subject it is only common courtesy to give references from where you have gotten your information. So far you have only given charts. If you are going to insult others ability to google search, perhaps you could point us in the right direction as to where to look. Personally I find it more than a little peculiar that you have not...

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

April 6th, 2014, 10:33 am

njroar

QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3220

Re: Planet X: discussion

Quote:

However, this will require a little bit of research on your part, as I don't believe in lazy arguments where I have to provide the entire burden of proof.

And that's where it stopped becoming a debate and turned into a lecture. Burden of proof is on the one making claims, not those that ask questions about it. I don't have to disprove a thing, because I'm not the one making any claims. The responsibility is on you. This is why most of these types of discussions go no where, because they tend to only happen in circles that already believe.

I spent a great deal of time writing in the Bigfoot community and no matter how hard I tried to keep things balanced with narrative towards both sides, but the people in the communities want to jump down your throat if you question anything. Hell, I had death threats when I put together the pieces that a doctor that claimed to have Bigfoot DNA couldn't come up with the data to prove her claims. She put out data that to the unknowing would eat up and buy into it, but with some digging and talking to other experts it was clear that it was all a hoax. And then she took the same speech and data over to the UFO and elongated skull crowds on that side of the fence. Didn't even try to change things up.

Claiming that the Government is lying in somethings so they must be lying about everything is ridiculous. Again, the burden of proof is on you to show that they've covered something up. Jesse Ventura driving through something with a camera doesn't prove that it's for that purpose. It just proves something's there. Speculation isn't facts. And regularjoe is right, the government lives on fear. It's how they get the backing for their agendas. Global warming, swine flu, etc... they've gone out of their way to create panics to spur demands for bills, which put money into projects that really have nothing to do with what they say they are. You think they'd keep quiet about that? The top astronomers at some of the biggest observatories aren't under the government's fingers, so you'd have someone wanting recognition for it if it was legitimate. Just using the "government won't let us know, they're lying" is an excuse, because you can't prove it. The burden of proof doesn't jump to me at that point. It's still firmly in your corner.

I just can't take a serious discussion when you expect anyone that questions you, to have to prove you wrong. That's not how anything in science works. For every scientist you've mentioned, I still haven't seen a single peer-reviewed study to prove this. And the excuse that they wouldn't peer review it, yes they would. The peer-review system is not even anywhere associated with the government.

w4c - mitochondrial dna is passed on by the female. If you have all boys, when they marry, they'll carry the mtDNA of their wives, not your wife. Nuclear DNA is where information from both families are passed on, but it's not useful as mtDNA for tracing lineage because it gets so garbled. mtEVE could be anyone and it definitely doesn't prove that's the earliest female. Everytime a female has zero daughters, her lineage through mtDNA ends. It requires a female in that line to pass it on. So scientist can go back and see where your family came from to a point, but they can't trace it back to an actual mtEVE. It will only go back to a point and it skips certain branches.

April 6th, 2014, 5:12 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Planet X: discussion

Steven is utilizing what is commonly known as the "shill gambit" which is a logically fallacy:

Regarding earthquakes, the link you provided contradicts itself. The chart on the link you provided says it shows earthquakes measuring "between 6 and 8". But if you follow the link on the top of the page (which I'm assuming the chart is using for its data), you find that the data doesn't match the chart. For example:

I made a chart of the data for every year back to 1990 (the earliest year on the website). It paints a much different picture than the HorizonProject site does.This shows earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater worldwide in blue, compared to the data from the Horizon Project in red. Clearly, total number of earthquakes seems to be increasing, but it's hardly the sharp spike shown in the link you provided. Again, this is from the link provided on the page you gave us, so I don't know what data they are using. Maybe I'm missing something.

I haven't had a chance to look into the rest yet, but so far it seems that things are not quite adding up.

Indeed, his entire argument is riddled with logical fallacies and his sources are not credible.

Quote:

When asked about who says he is an expert, you said NASA does. But you also say we can't trust NASA. So by your own logic, we can't trust anyone they call an expert, correct?

So much stupid.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that activity had any other name other than "troll" lol

And while I'm starting debate how correct you are, I still say...play nice. He is a guest

Steve:

NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE HERE BUUUUT: while inpolite, you notice how blue posted a link to what he was referring to? Yeah.....references.....they're super helpful when trying to tell someone something they probably don't know about.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

Last edited by regularjoe12 on April 7th, 2014, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

April 7th, 2014, 9:20 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4180Location: Davison Mi

Re: Planet X: discussion

TheRealWags wrote:

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

Regarding earthquakes, the link you provided contradicts itself. The chart on the link you provided says it shows earthquakes measuring "between 6 and 8". But if you follow the link on the top of the page (which I'm assuming the chart is using for its data), you find that the data doesn't match the chart. For example:

I made a chart of the data for every year back to 1990 (the earliest year on the website). It paints a much different picture than the HorizonProject site does.This shows earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater worldwide in blue, compared to the data from the Horizon Project in red. Clearly, total number of earthquakes seems to be increasing, but it's hardly the sharp spike shown in the link you provided. Again, this is from the link provided on the page you gave us, so I don't know what data they are using. Maybe I'm missing something.

I haven't had a chance to look into the rest yet, but so far it seems that things are not quite adding up.

And here too! One of the things Wags is great at is letting us know where he got his info from so we can look into it ourselves...And he's a great example, because, what he looked into...was based off of where TDJ got his info from.

Point taken yet?

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

April 7th, 2014, 9:23 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Planet X: discussion

WarEr4Christ wrote:

Pablo:Here's a link that shows 351 prophecies answered by Jesus about himself. I'm not sure if this will cross reference itself, which i believe is what you call a no no.

First don't buy the Christian propaganda, it is biased and self serving - ever notice how not one link you ever post comes from a neutral side - every single one has a specific agenda. As for the accuracy of the link you posted take the birth alone as he wasn't a direct descendant of David if you believe the virgin birth story since Mary didn't come from the bloodline and obviously Joseph wouldn't have been involved in the mix of genes. Second, the entire idea of a virgin birth was a Christian mistranslation from Isaiah 7:14 with the word "alma/almah" which really means young woman or maiden (not virgin) - Christians mixed in pagan beliefs as they often did and warped the meaning of the original text as they so often did (it's called revisionist history). In fact, if they intended it to mean virgin they clearly would have used the term "betulah" but my Hebrew is limited to a few words/phrases and this is what my Jewish friends who speak some Hebrew have told me. There are many other issues with the prophecies you claim were fulfilled above, but unless you really are ready to start with an open mind and dig deep it is kind of pointless.

and you missed some of the big one's such as...

- Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). Not from what I've read...

- Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). They spread out all over!

- Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. (Isaiah 2:4). Still waiting unless you think Obama and his Nobel prize/Obamacare might help us all out!

- Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. (Zechariah 14:9). Scientologist don't agree, nor do "insert faith of choice" nor do many neighboring and still enemy countries.

According to scripture, if one fails to meet even one of these conditions he cannot be considered the Messiah - bingo. BTW - from a timing standpoint, Jesus appeared well after the prophecy ended (about 300-400 years). Also, the Messiah was to lead people to a full Torah observance, anyone who changed it would be considered a false prophet (which Jesus himself warns us about yet we don't put him to the test for some reason) - the whole writing of the NT comes into issue here. Matthew tells us that he would be called Immanuel, not even his parent called Jesus that. I could give 100 more examples if you would like and again, it only takes one my friend.

You also keep referring to post after post of what Jesus claims himself, if you understood Judaism you would get the issues these personal revelations bring about - that isn't how it works. Christianity has taken a square peg and tried to shove it into a round hole when it comes to the prophecy and why not, the entire organization is built on a glass house that easily shatters with a couple of simple observances.

Apparently, it isn't as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be, Pablo. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of Hebrew or of ancient Greek, so I can't comment one way or the other. Personally, I choose to take the Christians at the word for the extraordinary claims they make.

Trying to trip them on a textual technicality is pretty absurd when, just using common sense, one can conclude that the whole idea of a virgin birth is absurd. There's also a certain level of misogyny implied there (that a woman who has never had sex is more "pure" or has some sort of special powers -- God would certainly never impregnate a woman who has a **** in her before, she's fallen) that's clearly indicative of bronze-age thinking.

April 8th, 2014, 12:07 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Planet X: discussion

You are talking about the Greek word (parthenos) translated from the Hebrew word (almah). I know no Greek other than pieces of the alphabet that fraternities/sororities use so I can't really comment on that other than "it is all Greek to me".

But this clearly points out the issue of translation - you go from Hebrew to Greek to English and you can understand why things certainly get lost in translation. Yet from a Christian perspective, is there every any doubt cast on the fact that Mary was a virgin? Even in the article you posted, the Greek term "parthenos" doesn't always refer to a virgin.

In other parts of the Bible, the term "Almah" is used to describe a pregnant woman - obviously not a virgin in those cases.

But let's say, for argument sake, that this translation happens to be taken correct. And if Mary was indeed a virgin as Christians claim, then no direct bloodline exist to where it needed to presenting another prophecy issue. Again, only once piece of the prophets has to be wrong for the prophecy not to have been fulfilled. Given hundreds of questionable, if not outright not unfulfilled prophecies, there is only one clear conclusion that can be reached.